KSP Interstellar Extended Support Thread

[FreeThinker]

I uploaded a Beta Version of KSPI-E 1.14 for Kerbal Space Program 1.3.0 which can be downloaded from here

Released on 2017-05-27

• compiled against KSP 1.3
• updated CRP to 0.7
• updated Tweakscale to KSP 1.3 compatible version
• updated filter extension to KSP 1.3 compatible version
• Balance: Replace KerpSteinDrive fuel LithiumDeuteride by LithiumHydride
• Balance: Beam Core Antimatter reactor requires both antimatter and hydrogen (liquid or gas) to function

[superdavekerman]

Are the new antimatter tank costs expected to be in the billions when empty? The 'large' at 1.25m shows as 3,957,731,000 cr empty and 5,276,954,000 full in the VAB.  The 'compact' at 1.25m shows 60k empty as expected from the config.  Also the description of the large is 2.5m but defaults to 1.25m in the VAB.  Is tweakscale messing this up?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

After updating to KSP IE 1.3 the game is still crashing on the load screen. Are there dependencies that still have not yet updated?

[ss8913]

2 hours ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

After updating to KSP IE 1.3 the game is still crashing on the load screen. Are there dependencies that still have not yet updated?

I think it's firespitter at this point... right before mine crashes it complains about a few mods throwing exceptions in modulemanager, and those are all the mods that have firespitter dependencies.

 

[Maelstrom Vortex]

It was tweak scale. @FreeThinker You may want to check if current Ckan dependencies indicate and include the current tweakscale version. Working now after separately updated tweakscale.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Maelstrom Vortex

[ss8913]

54 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

It was tweak scale. @FreeThinker You may want to check if current Ckan dependencies indicate and include the current tweakscale version. Working now after separately updated tweakscale.

I got a tweakscale update from CKAN today.  Will try launching again.

 

UPDATE: No, tweakscale updating did not fix it.  My logs show errors in ModuleManager:FINAL coming from the exact list of mods I have which require FireSpitter, so I'm still thinking it's the FireSpitter plugin that's to blame.

Edited May 28, 2017 by ss8913

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Yes, but firespitter is not a KSPIE dependency.

[raxo2222]

18 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

I uploaded a Beta Version of KSPI-E 1.14 for Kerbal Space Program 1.3.0 which can be downloaded from here

Released on 2017-05-27

• compiled against KSP 1.3
• updated CRP to 0.7
• updated Tweakscale to KSP 1.3 compatible version
• updated filter extension to KSP 1.3 compatible version
• Balance: Replace KerpSteinDrive fuel LithiumDeuteride by LithiumHydride
• Balance: Beam Core Antimatter reactor requires both antimatter and hydrogen (liquid or gas) to function

Well you never changed that for this fusion engine - still it uses LI-D, that is incompatible with tri-alpha reactor.

Edit: Can we see max power demand for fusion engines in part GUI?

Edit2:

At this point you can add internal buffer of Hydrogen/Antihydrogen for AIM reactor, that last for up to week, when reactor is at max usage.

Here is 6m AIM reactor setup powering 10m fusion engine (its just much lighter than Tri-Alpha reactor):

Even smallest antimatter tank lasts for years for 6m AIM reactor.

Edited May 28, 2017 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Well you never changed that for this fusion engine - still it uses LI-D, that is incompatible with tri-alpha reactor.

It only applies to new vessels, existing vessels are unaltered

3 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Here is 6m AIM reactor setup powering 10m fusion engine (its just much lighter than Tri-Alpha reactor):

Even smallest antimatter tank lasts for years for 6m AIM reactor.

Sure the antimatter power setup can be more compact and powerfull, but it produces a lot of  gamma radiation from which 20% end up as wasteheat, it fuel storage is inherently complex, unsafe,  as the tank and surrounding  vessel will explode when out of power or subject to high gee force or temperature spikes or hit by micro meteriods. The Tri alpha can run on fuel which by comparison is dirt cheap, does not require maintenance power, can be stored at high mass ratios and can be subjected to extreme high geeforces.

Edited May 28, 2017 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

46 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

It only applies to new vessels, existing vessels are unaltered

Sure the antimatter power setup can be more compact and powerfull, but it produces a lot of  gamma radiation from which 20% end up as wasteheat, it fuel storage is inherently complex, unsafe,  as the tank and surrounding  vessel will explode when out of power or subject to high gee force or temperature spikes or hit by micro meteriods. The Tri alpha can run on fuel which by comparison is dirt cheap, does not require maintenance power, can be stored at high mass ratios and can be subjected to extreme high geeforces.

Even for Antimatter-Initiatesd reactor, that runs all time at 100%, where weekly supply of Antimatter is counted in miligrams - grams?

Also i like how fusion engine uses 92% of Tri-Alpha max power, when both have same radius.

It appears if I keep same relative sizes of radiator/fuel tank/engine/reactor when scaling I'm getting same TWR/DV.

Edited May 28, 2017 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

Even for Antimatter-Initiatesd reactor, that runs all time at 100%, where weekly supply of Antimatter is counted in miligrams - grams?

mm yes it is indeed last very long now, but in contrast to pure antimatter reactor , I was never able to verify if the amount of antimatter used in Antimatter Initiated Micro-fusion is actually correct.

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

Also i like how fusion engine uses 92% of Tri-Alpha max power, when both have same radius.

This is by design

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

It appears if I keep same relative sizes of radiator/fuel tank/engine/reactor when scaling I'm getting same TWR/DV.

It appears it need a little tweaking on the mass growth  of the fusion drive , instead of growing woth exponent 3 it should grow by exponent 2.5, similar to most reactors

5 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

At this point you can add internal buffer of Hydrogen/Antihydrogen for AIM reactor, that last for up to week, when reactor is at max usage.

No, antimatter storage is an inherit difficult and  dangerous thing to do which require specialized hardware. Consider the complexity  part of the antimatter package

5 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Edit: Can we see max power demand for fusion engines in part GUI?

Good point, I will make it visible

Edited May 28, 2017 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

7 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Even for Antimatter-Initiatesd reactor, that runs all time at 100%, where weekly supply of Antimatter is counted in miligrams - grams?

Also i like how fusion engine uses 92% of Tri-Alpha max power, when both have same radius.

It appears if I keep same relative sizes of radiator/fuel tank/engine/reactor when scaling I'm getting same TWR/DV.

Notice that if you use the Tri Aplha to power the Kerbstein, thanks to high efficiencies you can create enough radiative power with a few skin radiators, allowing a very Sci Fi Look where you don't need excessive big radiators

Graphene Skin radiator are only 10% the mass of foldable radiator and  sclare with exponent 2 (square),

Edited May 28, 2017 by FreeThinker

[Torminator]

On 5/27/2017 at 8:00 PM, superdavekerman said:

Are the new antimatter tank costs expected to be in the billions when empty? The 'large' at 1.25m shows as 3,957,731,000 cr empty and 5,276,954,000 full in the VAB.  The 'compact' at 1.25m shows 60k empty as expected from the config.  Also the description of the large is 2.5m but defaults to 1.25m in the VAB.  Is tweakscale messing this up?

I'm curious of this as well, although for me BOTH are in the billions. This happened after KSP updated to 1.3, and after starting up and crashing I reverted to 1.2.2 via Steam. Possible cause?

Just trying to make sure this wasn't a balance change I missed before I go hunting for causes. 

 

EDIT- Okay, now the 1.25m tank is normal priced, but the 2.5 is still huge. Quite confused but at least it makes me doubt it's intentional. 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Torminator

[Babalas]

Need a little help figuring out some reactor values. Specifically I'm looking at the Tri-Alpha reactor (for reference https://youtu.be/JpYrkQ_-P2k?t=19m14s). So to start you have max power output. I assume this is primarily based on your research tech but is this also modified by any property of the fuel mode? Here I'm trying to figure out how the fuel mode comes into play regarding reactor power, reaction energy, reaction rate.

Next how does it go from Max Power Output to Charged Power? Is this related to the Charged Particles column?

Finally the Charged Particles resource when I right click the reactor itself is acting odd. It fills then drops a little every tick. This causes the reactor to ramp up. If I click the button to stop flow of charged particles it settles down, and as far as I can tell doesn't affect the useable power output. The connected atilla keeps producing the same thrust and electrical energy doesn't seem to be affected.

 

[Drunken Monkey Style]

On 5/27/2017 at 3:14 AM, Aghanim said:

Is Kerbstein == Epstein? If yes then this comes at the right time as I'm abusing VISTA to make Rocinante in KSP and fails... Now can you please add a RCS that can use water as propellant? Both arcject and resistojet RCS cannot use water as propellant

It's a nerfed Epstein - But the model is straight off the Rocinante

Independently, I'm working on an Expanse mod (would require KSPI-E) for those who wish to throw the concept of game balance out the window. 
 

[Drunken Monkey Style]

Side note: I'm super stoked to have my work included in KSPI- I've been playing with it for years and truly honored to have my first attempt at modding for KSP included in it.

And seeing people actually using it... Makes those nights and weekend learning Blender and all the tools worth it

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Drunken Monkey Style

[ss8913]

I am assuming that "Kerbstein Drive" ~= "Epstein Drive" from 'The Expanse' series by James S.A. Corey?  Glad to see I'm not the only fan of that series here   And if nobody's thanked you, @FreeThinker, for getting this mod 1.3 compatible on almost day 1, and before almost any other major mod, then let me be the first.  If I'm not the first, then let me be the Nth.

[FreeThinker]

5 hours ago, Drunken Monkey Style said:

It's a nerfed Epstein - But the model is straight off the Rocinante
 

 

 

 

I wouldn't called it nerved, rather an Eptein shrinked down to the size of the Rocinante. It's stats are directly derived from the series, which are superb by any measure

Edited May 29, 2017 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

23 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Good point, I will make it visible

Still its not visible for Vista and Magneto-inertial fusion engines.

Also these radiators, that I used are static radiator truss.

 

This is perfect ship for carrying cargo over solar system (or within moon system when hauling very heavy cargo)

With some creativity you could even use it as upper stage for Venus lander!

Just attach thermal turbojets for lower atmosphere and ARCJET for upper atmosphere ascent,

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by raxo2222

[RedParadize]

@FreeThinker Hello, I was wondering if it would be possible to have your Persitant Timewarp propulsion fonction as a stand alone mod or maybe a striped down version of KSPI.  KSPI is a bit too much for me (no offence, its just not for me) but the I would like to apply timewarp propulsion module to other stock/modded part if possible.

Thanks!

[TheRagingIrishman]

3 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@FreeThinker Hello, I was wondering if it would be possible to have your Persitant Timewarp propulsion fonction as a stand alone mod or maybe a striped down version of KSPI.  KSPI is a bit too much for me (no offence, its just not for me) but the I would like to apply timewarp propulsion module to other stock/modded part if possible.

Thanks!

[RedParadize]

1 minute ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

Persitant Timewarp propulsion as in "on rail" acceleration. I am not looking for a warp drive. But thanks!

[TheRagingIrishman]

Just now, RedParadize said:

Persitant Timewarp propulsion as in "on rail" acceleration. I am not looking for a warp drive. But thanks!

Oh sorry, thought that was what you were asking about. What about this one?

[RedParadize]

@TheRagingIrishman Thanks, I did try PersistentTrust before updating to 1.3. It was not bad but tricky to play with. On PersistentTrust forum page @FreeThinker had been talking with its creator about his own work around to get trust during time warp. It sounded pretty cool and that's why I am here.

[FreeThinker]

7 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Still its not visible for Vista and Magneto-inertial fusion engines.

Good idea, i will make them viible for these engines as well

Regarding the VISTA, now that we have an end game fusion engine, I'm opting to making the VISTA have their full power earlier (with fusion rockery) at the expense increase minimum size, making them more realistic

Edited May 29, 2017 by FreeThinker